Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K. RATNAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K. RATNAKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 348 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3466 (15 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 348 of 2007()

1. P.K. RATNAKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. V. BABU LIGIT, S/O. MAMMAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.348 of 2007

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in a private complaint alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. The private complaint was filed after the police conducted an investigation and referred the same. The petitioner on receipt of summons had appeared before the learned Magistrate. He filed an application, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-III, with a prayer that he may be discharged under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that Annexure-III application is not taken up for consideration by the learned Magistrate.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charges have not been framed so far. The petitioner can, in these circumstances, under law, claim discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C at any stage or 245(1) Cr.P.C after the enquiry under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that discharge has now been claimed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate has to consider the prayer for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. Cognizance is taken exparte without hearing the accused persons. After the accused persons enter appearance, they are certainly Crl.M.C.No.348 of 2007 2 entitled to submit before the Magistrate that cognizance taken is not justified and the allegations are groundless. If that be so, the petitioner can claim discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C and the Magistrate is bound to consider such claim for discharge.

4. I do not think it necessary to insist on any specified time frame. But I must certainly observe that if Annexure-III has been filed as early as in October, 2005, the learned Magistrate must make every endeavour to consider the claim for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 60 days from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. Personal appearance of the petitioner need not be unnecessarily insisted till a decision is taken on that question.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.